A couple of things have happened in the last two weeks that on some strange level seem linked to me. There was the outrageous slur by Senator David Lyonhjelm against fellow Senator and Green Party member Sarah Hanson-Young. Then the other day we woke up to the news that the World Cup qualifying basketball game between Australia and the Philippines had ended in farce after a massive on-court scrap. The link? Well both were asymmetric responses to a provocation.

That had me thinking about how drama -and those two events certainly were laden with drama. It appears to be a much greater factor in society and the workplace right now. More than ever – and certainly not helped by The Donald – we are fixing our positions on subjects and then hanging on to that anchor point, often without much research to ground our position. Too bad for you if we aren’t in accord with some other person. Not only will they take issue with you on that issue, but they’re highly likely to write you off altogether. To some degree, I blame Facebook with the concept of ‘unfriending’.

Remember the same sex marriage debate? I listened to a podcast where the subject of unfriending somebody if you found they were on the opposite side of you in that particular debate, was the topic du jour. The ‘panel’ was millennials and their consensus was that you should unfriend without much regard and move on. Why waste time on people who don’t share your beliefs and attitudes was the commonly held opinion. It’s called tolerance that’s why!

I also blame reality TV. Let’s face it, the younger generation have had a pretty strict diet of reality shows as the backdrop to their upbringing. At least the dramas of my generation with the likes of ‘Lost in Space’ and High Chaparral were easily recognizable as fictional. A consistent feature in each and every reality show is the concept of drama – more often than not fabricated or confected. In some shows the drama gets resolved within the arc of the episode, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will be there again in the next episode. Add to the mix that we are told we need to create a brand for ourselves and constantly create a narrative – read as dramatic story – and you can see how drama is now a constant in our lives. Your chances of being successful on a music talent show appear to be lessened if you cannot magic some story to pluck the heartstrings of the audience – whose phone/text votes keep you in the competition. No wonder our younger generation is seeking drama. It’s like oxygen to them.

Back to the Senate. Without a doubt, both houses of Parliament are theatrical and all too often there are polarised viewpoints that are argued ad-nauseam at the expense of good policy, manners and tolerance. It’s as though, sometimes, we want to create the mayhem and havoc to belittle our opponent, or wind them up where their loss of control causes them to overstep the mark. Having watched a lot of sport, it is a tactic used in that arena sometimes to great effect to create provocation that results in a sanction against the provocatee and seldom any sanction for the provocateur. As we are currently in the midst of the World Cup football this brings to mind the response of Zinedine Zidane for France against Italy when he head-butted his opponent, Marco Materazzi in a World Cup final no less! A classic example to prove my point. The provocation…. a racial slur, the response over the top and pretty much what everyone remembers from the event.

In the basketball match I’m advised that the aggression by the Pilipinno players was as a result of constant jibes about the loss of their ‘super hero’ boxing champion Manny Pacquiao to Aussie boxer Jeff Horn. The response by Daniel Kickert, leading with his forearm, when a fellow player was roughly dealt with was clearly inappropriate and fair play to him he has since said he regretted it. Heaps of drama though right? 1,069, 294 views of the fight on You Tube to be exact and climbing!

And so it was with Lyonhjelm, who delivered a metaphorical verbal forearm to Hanson-Young. Excessive, inappropriate and not at all helpful. Why he hasn’t expressed regret like Kickert is beyond most rational folks but he is a wily politician and perhaps he is thriving on the drama of it all? What he missed with his vulgar riposte was the opportunity to focus on the provocation by Hanson-Young which as a result of the furor he created in the media has slipped well and truly under the radar. To label ‘men’ or ‘all men as rapists’ is inflammatory and does not one jot of good in improving the lives of women who are subject to sexual harassment, family and intimate partner violence or inequality.

Hanson-Young may use in her defense that she was speaking her truth. She might argue she was raising awareness of issues of violence against women (especially in the immediate days after the death of Eurydice Dixon – read my previous blog). Raising awareness without taking action though is merely storytelling. It’s actions that really count. Caroline Myss put it really effectively at a seminar I attended a few years back. Someone asked her a question about their personal relationship and how the person could get their partner to listen when they were speaking their truth. Myss, in characteristic fashion, upbraided the person and commented that speaking your truth is pure BS. Concentrate rather, she bluntly stated, on living your truth. There is a great lesson here for our politicians.

In society, and therefore the workplace, we are in danger of letting polarized views taint relationships that should otherwise be based on mutual respect, valuing skill sets of others, team effort and the achievement of common goals for the benefit of the business and thereby everyone within it. It is possible to retain friendships with people whose values may have diverted from yours. The danger all too often is we take one ideological perspective and extrapolate it for that person entirely, without checking first their views on a range of other issues. For example, a less than liberal approach to say same sex marriage may well lead someone to believe their old school friend is also anti-assisted dying without actually ever finding out. I’m forever surprised by the rich tapestry that is people and finding that within conservative perspectives there are often flashes of liberalism and vice versa. Case in point is George Brandis who recently departed from the Senate. His politics are of the right but gave one of the most effective and moving speeches against One Nation leader and fellow senator when she wore a Burka into the Senate to make her race-laden point. Go figure!

Let’s have more good manners in our political arenas, work places and communities. Taking satisfaction from being victimized and amplifying it to create drama is not where our energies should be going. Let’s hear less of the S words (‘slut’ and ‘shag’) and more “let’s agree to disagree on that” Lets focus on addressing real concerns within both the world of women and of men. Let’s reach out. To quote C S Lewis:

‘Each day we are becoming a creature of splendid glory, or one of unthinkable horror’.’ If we could just give a bit more emphasis to the former, we are much less likely to become the latter! Less witch more lion please!

I’m off on holidays very soon to Iran. When I tell people this it has been pretty much the same response -why Iran? To understand the turmoil in the world today I think you need to have a deeper appreciation of religious tension. To understand the complexity of the conflict in Syria, or the ‘below the radar’ horrors of Yemen you need an appreciation of the schism that is Sunni versus Shia. Whereas the world’s Muslim population is around 85% Sunni, Iran is 95% Shia.

Given its location along the silk road between East and West, Iran (Persia) has been at the centre of the development of civilisation. As a result Iran is generously endowed with UN World Heritage sites, in fact more per capita than any other country. Its historical religious connections are immense including the early foundations of Christianity, the Ishmalis and the pre-Christian ancient religion of Zoroastrianism. I found myself with a connection to the Ishmalis who were protection by much feared assassins. I once considered working for the Aga Khan Network (the spiritual leader of the Ishmalis) in Kenya.

What perhaps has perturbed people most about my upcoming trip is the fact that my travelling partner, my wife, will have to wear certain dress particularly head covering. These discussions were a not infrequent topic in the lunch room when our Queensland Senator, Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation political party, decided to make a point and wore a burqa into the Senate. As you might expect this sparked off a whole debate about whether women should be allowed to wear this full face covering in public.

At times people have commented to me that my wife should not have to be subjected to wearing the burqa and they wouldn’t travel under such circumstances. Actually my wife will not be wearing a burqa she will wear, when necessary, a hijab. Different thing altogether. The clothing of Muslim women appears to be such a polarising aspect in society. In fact if you think about it there is a much greater emphasis on female clothing than men’s the whole world over. In recent days Labour (and opposition) leader running in the New Zealand national election has been asked what ‘outfit’ (clothes) she will be wearing in a to be televised debate with the Prime Minister. To further illustrate my point Channel 9 morning TV host Karl Stefanovic wore the same suit for a year without fail and it wasn’t commented on once. His female colleague Lisa Wilkinson continues to endure comments about what she is wearing on a regular basis.

While comments about women’s attire might be ubiquitous there are undertones to comments made about the clothing worn by Muslim women that don’t exist outside of this religious community. What should be widely understood, but clearly isn’t, is that the dress reflects local customs and culture much more than religious dictates. I think it is beholden on managers to be across the nuances of such things as part of what I would describe as their Cultural Quotient. Good managers are aware of cultural mores especially when they have an ethnically diverse workforce.

My blogs are primarily aimed to provoke reflection not preach/teach but on this topic it might be worth just re-stating some of the issues of female attire worn by Muslim women to inform the debate around the water cooler. The birthplace of Islam is Saudi Arabia and those who most strictly interpret the Quran are the Wahabis (who strictly speaking are a minority but influential sect of Islam). They see their role as purifying the religion and have a very austere approach to matters of life and worship. This is perhaps understandable given it took root amongst desert dwelling Bedouin. The life of the Bedouin is, by its very nature, an austere one and where women’s garb has a certain practicality outside of its religious undertones. So the first learning point is that dress for women is based on geography and culture more than just a literal reading of the Quran or Haddiths. Put simply, because I am neither a Muslim nor an Islamic scholar, the Quran requires a woman to cover her head and bosom. Contention remains over the degree of covering and different countries and cultures have different customs. One thing is clear – not all dress is the same.

When Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party wore the burqa into the Senate she was not making a point with respect to all Muslim women, but primarily those who hail from Afghanistan. The list below, while not exhaustive gives a flavor of the diversity of dress worn within the Muslim world.

Arabian peninsular – Abaya which is black and involves covering from head to toe. The head covering component is often a shayla. At one end there is a small opening for the eyes and gloves may be worn (black) to hide the flesh. At the other end of the spectrum the head is covered by a separate veil showing quite a bit of hair and wrapped loosely underneath the neck, full face showing. In my experience both extremes and everything in between exist in Saudi Arabia with no real issue. If you think the abaya doesn’t afford much in the way of fashion license for Arab women Google ‘Dubai Style Abaya’.

Persia – Chador which is more like a house coat held together by the hands in black or other colour. Quite often it reveals brightly colored ‘western’ clothing including jeans underneath. The degree to which the hair is covered varies greatly. The face is almost always visible. A hijab which is a scarf that covers the hair may also be worn rather than a scarf.

Afghanistan – Burqa which is from head to toe with a mesh panel to enable some vision. It is generally blue but can be black. No face is seen.

Jordan – Kaftans often have detailed embroidery on the neck sleeve and hem. The headscarf associated with this is the asba which is cloth wrapped around the head like a wheel then draped in a decorative fashion.

Palestine – A heavily embroidered cross-stitched material is worn by Palestinian women. The complexity and structure of the embroidery will vary depending on the town or village from which the person comes.

Turkey – Jilbab which is like an overcoat buttoned down the middle. They can be quite snug fitting showing a sense of style. A silk scarf tied beneath the chin is quite often the head covering of choice.

Indonesia/Malaysia – Dupatta which is a long scarf draped across the head and shoulders often paired with matching garments.

Morocco – Jalabiya is a robe with a pointed hood often has a belt, or string enabling shape to be given to the garment.

There’s lots more too, with variations within regions and between countries. It’s a rich tapestry and funnily enough tapestry is often involved!

The final thing to remember is that modest dress and head covering is not the preserve of Muslim women. In fact were you to visit areas in Pennsylvania in the US you would encounter Amish women wearing quite severe head-covering bonnets. Mennonite women, Catholic nuns, Irish and Spanish Catholic women, orthodox Jewish women, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoist and Buddhist nuns and Eastern orthodox women, for example, all wear some form of head covering.

The key issue is whether the woman wearing their particular dress and/or head covering is comfortable doing so and whether we can park our conscious or unconscious bias for long enough to interact with them in an authentic, equitable and compassionate way. Knowing the cultural nuances of your workplace and community, and appreciating the richness that diversity imparts, is a necessary part of our managerial and leadership toolkit. It’s also a great elevator answer for why I’m heading to Iran in a few days’ time.

The word ‘business’ seems ubiquitous. We have ‘show’ business the ‘music’ business, agri-business, actual business and so on. But what do we really mean by business? I recall having a bit of a stoush with the head of Queensland’s Australian Institute of Management (AIM) when I said it needed to concentrate less on business and focus more on management. It took them a few years to understand the difference. Management is the tools you use to make your business happen. Often times though, and this is especially true of entrepreneurs and so called ‘self-made-men’, there is little observable good management practice in the way they run their companies. They are suspicious of executives who do not have their own capital (‘skin’) in the game. They often run the business through force of personality and layer family around them primarily out if issues of trust. Sound familiar?

The public seem to laud such individuals, especially when they make pronouncements in areas in which they hold no greater gravitas than the ordinary person in the street. The business person’s foray into politics rankles with me because they have no greater knowledge most times than anyone else but seem to think they know better. The fact is their solutions are often proposed for the benefit of their interests and not the general good. That’s why lobbyists have grown exponentially. Everyone seems to have a vested interest they want pushed and secured. The implication of the business person waffling about politics is that, given a chance, they could do much better because ‘hey’ politicians have never run a business. I’ve even heard it from people who have said the good thing about Pauline Hanson is the fact that she was a successful business woman. I think that’s a bit of a long bow to say that running a fish and chip shop gives someone an insight into running a country. I would say running a fish and chip shop equips you to …well … run a fish and chip shop.

Politicians, generally in opposition but sometimes in power, especially when trying to ‘sell’ some cuts in spending, will dumb down government referencing the household budget and the need to make sure that they can balance the books. This is apparently meant to appeal to some demographic or other who will think that they are, at last, being understood by the political elite. To my mind running a country is nothing like running a business. I’ve run businesses for some 25 years and I’ve never run a country. I’m not sure if I suddenly became PM of Australia I could hit the ground running drawing on my many years of experience. I guess two things I have learnt from the world of management though, is that you need to know where you are not strong and know who to ask to find out what you need to know. Actually that is great advice for Trump. Not sure he will follow it. Experts scaffold politicians; it’s a safety net that ensures that hopefully the best policy at the time comes to the fore. Trump’s dismissal of the expertise and conclusions of his intelligence advisers because he knows how difficult it is to trace a hacker in the business world, doesn’t bode well for him seeking advice to make up for his lack of expertise in the world of politics or economics for that matter. The cadre of business people he is surrounding himself with are of equal concern; many of them in that elite coterie of ‘self-made-men’.

So are the world of politics and business actually that different? Quite often the lines are blurred and increasingly big corporations are acting as quasi political states. In fact historically the lines were really blurred. The British East India Company for example had its own army which was the reason it came to rule large parts of India. Larry Cata Backer of Penn State Law wrote in 2011 that transnational corporations are at the centre of extraordinary and complex governance systems that are developing outside the state and international public organisations and beyond the conventionally legitimising framework of the forms of domestic or international law. Such frameworks one can safely assume are to make it easier for the company to do business and provide benefit to their shareholders. So business is blurring the lines from corporate to geo-political governance.

But I would argue there are elements to running a business that cannot match the complexity of running a State. For one I cannot recall any fish and chip shop (well in Australia at least) that has its own defence force. Nor one where they provide the means by which the road which carry the cars of their customers are funded directly by the shop owner. I don’t recall them creating a network of foreign embassies or trade offices in a range of countries (although that might be good to get cheap Basa off the Vietnamese). The fact is you don’t need to think too long, or too hard to come up with a huge list of things business doesn’t do. Trump University does not mean Trump educates America. Hanson for one did not have a school attached to her Ipswich fish and chip shop. A first aid room at my company does equate to running a national health system.

Business nowadays increasingly focuses on short-term gain in order to maximise the remuneration of the senior executives. Those companies that are publicly listed will go ‘hell for leather’ to try and maximise returns for shareholders. On some occasions they will even borrow to pay dividends. Actually that does sound like government! Share market performance is often a KPI that is linked to bonuses, plus where bonuses are paid in shares it’s good to have a buoyant share price right?

In government we should be looking at the much longer term to provide a boost in prosperity for all, not just one segment of the population. Governments require significant data capture and modelling and analysis especially in the realm of economics. Governments are held to account in a way that oftentimes companies aren’t. You hear of politicians being unceremoniously dumped from office much more frequently than you hear of a businessman going to jail. In fact I think the sum total of business people who did ‘time’ for their role in the GFC was two. This needs fact checking though as it could be half that!

The stakes are high in government. You have the lives of millions in your hands. You can’t just do what you can in business when it ‘goes south’ by winding the company up (and the workers with it), having secured your own fortune along the way with no collateral damage to yourself through a web of trusts and arms-length company structures (a number based in the Cayman Islands). I’d much rather see politicians using the principles of management to run the State and not use the often blunt tools of business to carve out a name for themselves. We wait with baited breath to see what Trump does with running his country rather than his company. We all hope he does well because his success is very much our business.

I had the rare pleasure last Saturday to be in the presence of Rob Bell for a whole day seminar. Bell was recently announced in Time magazine’s 100 most influential people. Part evangelist, part stand-up comedian this American self-help guru was great fun. There is nothing more inspiring than seeing a master ply their craft and doing it live. It doesn’t matter if it’s Pink Floyd, Kiri Te Kanawa, Ritchie McCaw or Oprah Winfrey, virtuoso performances can be enjoyed for the pleasure of seeing someone at the top of their game. And believe me Rob Bell is at the top of his.

This week has also been the week of the Republican’s convention (RNC 2016). Talking of people at the top of their game, Donald Trump is being less feted in Cleveland than any other Presidential candidate in living memory. There’s a slight irony here too because the performances on stage have been routinely poor from the ‘haven’t I heard that before’ speech by Melania Trump, to the Ted Cruz speech where he forgot, or overlooked actually endorsing Trump for President. The irony being that Cleveland is home to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame which celebrates probably the greatest on stage performers the world has ever encountered. Of course the Hall of Fame is a backward looking institution as all halls of fame are, celebrating the best from the past. Seldom do you ever get in when in your prime. Rather it’s a celebration of a lifetime’s contribution. This fixation with looking back on how good things used to be, does resonate through the Cleveland republican Convention in a big way and I believe amongst a group of worried voters the world over.

In the Q and A session last Saturday Rob Bell was asked to explain, if he could, the rise of Donald Trump. His answer was very insightful. He talked about revolutionary change. He referenced the internet and the massive change this is bringing about to how we do things from relationships to business and everything in between. He referred to the previous massive change being the printing press where knowledge, once the preserve of the political elite became, theoretically anyway, available to the masses. Both good and bad came of that but the mass production of knowledge changed the world forever. The internet is the next seismic shift in the way information is changing our lives forever. Then, as now, Bell divides people into two groups when a seismic change is upon us. There are the ‘lean-in’ people who see this marvellous opportunity and embrace it. The app millionaires and social media junkies are shining lights here. But then there are those fearful of change – the resisters. This is the brigade that think surely the internet has wrought bad tidings upon us including networked terrorists, bomb-making classes and school bullying via social media. This group resist and look back to the halcyon days when things were simpler and clearly better. Resistance like this, according to Bell, stems a lot of basic survival instinct and this emanates from the reptilian brain. This is where we know from neuroscience that our fight and flight instinct is based. Here adrenalin and cortisol are produced and these do cause heightened arousal and a tendency towards aggression. This fear of change is tapping into the reptilian brain and manifesting itself as the aggression and violence we are seeing exhibited by Trump campaign supporters.

Not so long ago in Queensland over half a million people voted for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. Political commentators, scratching their heads to explain this, have put it down to her tapping into some basic fears. In times of uncertainty fear is given much greater freedom to roam. When uncertainty levels rise we drop down the Maslow hierarchy a notch and find ourselves more concerned with safety and security. It’s easy to tap into generalisations borne more out of ignorance than fact, and there are plenty willing to exploit this; Hanson being one of them. Migrants will take our jobs, their Islamic religion will overwhelm us and they will be bomb-making on the quiet. Jobs and family security will become paramount. While these might be reptilian instincts they are familial and tightly held for good evolutionary reasons.

This week also saw the release of McKinsey’s report ‘Poorer than their parents? A New Perspective on Income Equality.’ by Richard Dobbs et al. Part of the reason why we should not think that a Clinton Presidency is a foregone conclusion rests in some of the statistics contained in the report. Survey results from the US showed that almost two in five respondents felt their economic positions had deteriorated. Broadly the same figures were reported in the UK, where Brexit has recently happened and France where Marine Le Pen’s National Front party are waiting in the wings when, as The Spectator recently observed, ‘the French mood finally snaps.’

To really understand whether the current political turmoil is in fact a zeitgeist we need to understand what is on the radar for those for whom the digital advance has not yielded increased prosperity. I think it is possible here to make some global generalisations. The blue collar workers of say Michigan (automotive), South Australia (automotive) Philadelphia (manufacturing) Wyalla (steel) Wales (mining), Central Queensland (mining), Townsville (refining) all share a common thread. Their jobs are being taken and they are being automated or off-shored out of existence. While generally unskilled, these workers are anything but stupid. They know the truisms that lie behind the advance of technology and globalisation. Firstly a displaced steel worker, or someone from the automotive assembly line does not easily transition to a social media manager, nor will their self-curated life on Instagram generate much income. Secondly they know that once their job has gone their chances of living the lifestyle they were accustomed to are very slim.

This weekend I’m out looking at cars. A quick look at some of the new vehicles on the market suggests driverless cars are not that far away. Many of the advanced features, albeit on makes and models beyond my scope, are already nudging close to the driverless car concept. Only the wealthy at the outset will be able to afford them. Whether the ownership or not of a driverless car becomes a class wedge that illuminates the burgeoning gap between rich and poor is yet to be determined, but you can be sure that blue collar workers whose livelihoods depend on driving for a living will be keeping a watchful eye on the future. It’s perhaps understandable then that this cohort in the US might want to look seriously at Trump. His slogan after all is somewhat backward looking. ‘Let’s make America great again’ could mean pushing forward or for many it resonates with simpler better days gone by. Days by the way we cannot get back. If you are one of the 2.5 million workers who currently drive for a living in the US you might just want to side with Trump.

Between now and November 8 when the Presidential race is decided we need to be less critical of the voters who are drawn to what, on the face of it, is a pretty distasteful, mean and shambolic Trump campaign. We also need to be mindful of the pollster gyroscopes that are out of whack. Reports of a Clinton landslide sound way too optimistic to me. Remember the Brexit pre-polling? In our own nation we need to become comfortable with the paradox of embracing those who voted for One Nation, but rejecting Pauline Hanson and all her party stands for. As Rob Bell much more eloquently puts it. ‘Why blame the dark for being dark? It is far more helpful to ask why the light isn’t as bright as it could be.’

I’ve been a CEO over 20 years and this week I passed the milestone of 10 years as CEO of the Construction Training Centre. According to Business Insider Australia the average tenure of a CEO is 9.7 years so I’ve managed, just, to scrape over that particular hurdle.

They rather unhelpfully, from my perspective, think the optimal lifespan of a CEO is a mere 4.8 years. Gulp! That’s to suggest I’ve outstayed my welcome by some 5.2 years. They cite three main reasons why CEO’s generally move on being burn out or loss of enthusiasm for the job, external changes in the market where skill set requirements change and when Board’s decide enough is enough. And I get all of that. It’s hard to maintain drive once you emerge from a purple patch. For many the inexorable torrent of KPI achievement gets to the point when alternatives look rosier. Quite often CEO’s transition to not for profits tired by the singularity of the commercial world. Others, and I’d like to think I’m one of them, aim to expand the outcome metric such that there are a range of measures by which one can evaluate their own performance and therefore continue to grow and thrive.

I call these pivots. In the brave new Australian business world, without the ballast of our resources sector in overdrive, we have to look elsewhere to drive economic growth to generate the prosperity that we have become so accustomed to. As a country we need to pivot. This was one of the messages of the Coalition’s not so successful election campaign in the Federal election. At the time of writing, almost a week on, we are still not definitively clear as to who will govern the country. If you think the lifespan of a company CEO is short, spare a thought for the CEO of our country; the Prime Minister.

Over the last five years we have had something like five Prime Ministers. There are all sorts of performance metrics to determine whether a Prime Minster is successful but it appears to me we only look at a few when making this judgment. The first is the country’s financial performance which in a globalised world is not really in the full control of the government anyway. In CEO terms this is the state of the balance sheet and importantly, in the short-time horizon thinking that besets both Boards and voters, the profit and loss. For Prime Ministers there is the other key measure which is the opinion poll measuring the most nebulous of characteristics – popularity? Be warned. Popularity can easily beget populism.

With the rise of Trump, Lafarge, Xenophon, Hanson et al serious political commentators and writers are warning of the danger of the tide of populism that is entering the world of politics. Populism can mean many things to many people. To some it’s having their local representative totally aligned to their own views and in these cases they regard their politician as ‘on the money’ and ‘in touch’. One of the worst criticisms that can be levelled against a politician is that he or she is out of touch. Populism though for me is a kind of giddy political surfing where the incumbent politician rides a number of waves hoping always to catch the best ride to take them safely to the beach. The only grasp you get of their underpinning values, beliefs and thought processes is the particular fad (wave) of the day.

So how should we measure a politician’s success? One logical way is to define what the criteria for success is from the outset. If we carry the hypothesis forward that the PM is the CEO of the country then we might just be able to use the essential success factors of a CEO as a guide. Getting an overall consensus of what makes a successful CEO is no easy feat but there is a consensus of sorts that suggest the CEO only needs to do three things:

Set the overall vision and strategy and communicates this to all stakeholders;

Get the best skilled people together to make the vision a reality; and

Make sure there’s enough cash in the bank.

Applying this to our recent election then….

The message from Malcolm Turnbull was one of jobs and growth. The rhetoric of this was repeated in a mantra-like fashion but what wasn’t clear to many, I would suggest, is what this means to the individual in the street. Underpinning all of this is this vague concept of innovation. Innovation as a buzz word caught on quicker than a Medicare text alert. As an aside I put myself in Turnbull’s shoes when the Medicare ‘text’ scare emerged. He never really properly neutralised this attack. I would have issued a Coalition Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) storm warning text the morning of the polling saying something like. ‘BOM Beware- dangerous tropical cyclone Hanson on the horizon’. So on the count of clear message Turnbull, the supposed great communicator, was found wanting.

Getting the best skilled people to make the vision a reality comes down to how we educate and train our people to confront what’s coming. The challenges are many and while, yes, it’s an exciting time to be an Australian I think it’s also a scary time for a young school leaver or graduate (from Uni or TAFE) to firstly choose a career path that has some degree of protection from automation and secondly to be able to ply your ‘trade’ in a meaningful job in your field of study. This to me was the missing opportunity in the campaign. Labor focused on education only with respect to Gonski which I’m still convinced very few Australians (me being one of them) understand the detail of, or rationale behind. We need to radically address education and training across all spectrums of pre-school, primary, secondary, VET and tertiary if we want to compete globally. This is an even better legacy to leave behind than a huge surplus which we partly squandered on school halls. Perhaps our surplus in the Rudd years would have better spent on soft education structures than physical ones.

The final measure is cash in the bank. We have had a shot across the bows this week from Standard and Poors who have put us on credit watch suggesting that our much treasured AAA credit rating is in jeopardy if we don’t start addressing our growing deficit. For me this is a simplistic view and I have complete disdain for these rating agencies. We should always remember that they gave AAA credit ratings to bundled collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) that in reality were of junk bond value. And we all know where that led…that’s right the GFC.

As I reflect back on my ten years I have achieved consistently across the three key success criteria. For me though that is no real measure of success. Those three are a given that any CEO is expected to achieve and therefore I don’t think you can really judge your time with any sense of pride if those has been your sole outcome. For a PM one key measure surely must be the degree of community cohesion. This is important right now with elements in the Senate with an agenda likely to cause social division. As a CEO this translates into how well the team is gelling to get results. Perhaps the most important test is how well are those for whom you have stewardship faring. For a PM that is how content and cohesive is the community. For the CEO this translates to the degree of well-being expressed by the work team. Our recent staff survey would suggest that we are in pretty good shape. For me the whole-hearted employee is what we should strive for. Achieve this and you just know your customers will be taken care of. All Turnbull needs to do now, on the eve of his first term as an elected PM, is get his team to work as one, sharpen his message, get it out there, bring us back to surplus and make us all happier and content with the way things are. Good luck with all that. With 20 years under my belt, and to quote a fellow Queenslander, my name’s Phil and I’m here to help!